I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving break and that you’re not having to eat turkey sandwiches all this week.

I know that I’ve been really absent from blogging/podcasting lately and I apologize for the lack of updates over the last few weeks, but I’ve been completely swamped with preparations for a major meeting that I’m putting together this weekend for my (real) job, so I haven’t had time to do much else.

Anyway, there’s so much that has happened this month that I’ve been meaning to blog about, like the Web 2.0 Summit—which happened in SF from NOV 7-9^th (check out their audio and video podcasts here)—together with their popular Web 2.0 Launchpad (read more at TechCrunch, ZDNet and VentureBeat). You can find lots of summaries and wrap-ups on the Web 2.0 Summit in the blogosphere, including some interesting coverage by CNET and write-ups at Read/Write Web, GigaOm, Stowe Boyd, and Fast Company.

And, speaking of Web 2.0, I find it interesting that Intel (of all companies!) announced at the Web 2.0 Summit that they were also getting into the Web Office game, with the launch of Suite Two—“…a rich set of interconnected services that combine to improve productivity and enable high-engagement marketing…[including] the most trusted platforms for blogs, wikis, RSS feed reading, and RSS feed management, all under a single management interface.”

Suite Two consists of four existing applications: MovableType from SixApart, SocialText, Simplefeed and Newsgator (read more at TechCrunch).

I think what is even more revealing than the fact that it shows how easy it is these days to put together a Web Office Suite these days (this suite was actually put together by SpikeSource for Intel), I think it also shows the shift in thinking of exactly what a Web Office Suite is. No spreadsheets. No presentation tools. No typical office suite stuff. Instead, this is really a suite of Web 2.0 content consuming/generating tools. Cool (or should it be “Sweet”?).

Anyway, that’s about all the time (and thoughts) I can spare before my big meeting this weekend. Hopefully, life will get back to semi-normality after this weekend.

For all of you who celebrate Thanksgiving this week, I’d like to wish you a wonderful thanksgiving celebration with lots of fun, food, and fellowship—have a great one!

For those of you “non-technology” managers struggling to keep up with all the web/tech innovations, as well as those of us “closet nerds” stuck in a corporate job outside of the tech industry, Harvard professor Andrew McAfee has recently published an article in the November issue of Harvard Business Review, called Mastering the Three Worlds of Information Technology (available FREE till the end of the month).According to McAfee, the article is “…intended to help non-technologist managers make sense of the huge range of available applications and also to clarify their roles in IT efforts.”

Executives need to stop looking at IT projects as technology installations and start looking at them as periods of organizational change that they have a responsibility to manage…

…managers who distance themselves from IT abdicate a critical responsibility. Having studied IT for the past 12 years, I believe that executives have three roles to play in managing IT: They must help select technologies, nurture their adoption, and ensure their exploitation. However, managers needn’t do all those things each time they buy a new technology. Different types of IT result in different kinds of organizational change when they are implemented, so executives must tailor their roles to the technologies they’re using. What’s critical, though, is that executives stop looking at IT projects as technology installations and start looking at them as periods of organizational change that they have a responsibility to manage.

And along those lines, the basic premise of the article is that corporate IT can be broken down into three distinct categories, which McAfee first describes in detail and then proceeds to offer advice on how to manage the three types of IT, including an overwhelming number of case studies from various industries to prove his point…

1. Function IT (FIT) includes technologies that make the execution of stand-alone tasks more efficient. Word processors and spreadsheets are the most common examples of this IT category.

2. Network IT (NIT) provides a means by which people can communicate with one another. Network technologies include e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, and groupware like Lotus Notes. NIT allows people to interact, but it doesn’t define how they should interact. It gives people freedom to experiment instead of telling them what they must do.

3. Enterprise IT (EIT) is the type of IT application that companies adopt to restructure interactions among groups of employees or with business partners. Applications that define entire business processes, such as CRM and SCM—as well as technologies, such as electronic data interchange, that automate communications between companies—fall into this category. Unlike network technologies, which percolate from the bottom, enterprise technologies are very much top-down; they are purchased and imposed on organizations by senior management.

Across the three IT categories, executives have three tasks. First, they must help select IT applications that will deliver the organizational capabilities they desire. Second, they must lead adoption efforts that result in the creation of complements for those technologies. And third, they must shape the exploitation of IT by ensuring that technologies, capabilities, and complements stay aligned.

After reading this entire article, I must say that I was left wondering where McAfee was really going with this article. Don’t get me wrong—I am a big fan of his blog and highly respect the work that he’s done around Enterprise 2.0; but somehow, I think that the article wasn’t really quite as articulate as his usual blog posts or perhaps I just completely missed the point. Whatever the case, at least I know I’m not the only one who had some doubts about the article, as can be seen from McAfee’s initial explanations in response to reader commentary, as well as a slightly stronger response to comments after getting “Slashdotted.”

Having said that, I must admit that the link to the supplementary section called IT Dialogue was a very good, thought-provoking summary that lends itself towards “Getting’ ETech Support”. Here’s what it says:

Business and IT leaders should meet periodically to discuss the state of the company’s IT-based capabilities. During these meetings, the CIO’s role isn’t to unveil new technologies but to collaborate with executives on capability development. The discussions should cover organizational footprints: the geographic, functional, and divisional range over which the company will deploy new technologies. The expense, difficulty, and time involved in deploying IT—especially enterprise IT—increases as the footprint grows. The conversation can be broken down according to IT category and should address some specific questions.

Functional IT

• Will any of the new software on the market enable our engineers, scientists, analysts, and other workers to do their jobs more efficiently?
• Are our function technologies outdated? If so, why? What has changed?

Network IT

• How do our people collaborate? Do we know what technologies they’re using?
• Do we have ways of letting qualitative information flow horizontally and vertically within the company as well as back and forth with customers and suppliers?
• If we wanted to get broad feedback on an important topic, how would we do it?
• How do we know what our people are working on and what they think the hot topics are?

Enterprise IT

• In what ways are our current processes not supporting the needs of the business? Which ones need to be redesigned? Which ones should be extended to our customers and suppliers?
• Are there best practices that should be embedded in our enterprise IT endeavors so that they can be deployed more widely? How much more widely? Do they need to be adjusted at all for new environments?
• Are there important business activities, events, or trends that we should monitor? If we aren’t monitoring them, why not? Are the data unavailable or stored across so many systems that the information is difficult to assemble?
• What’s the most recent period that we could easily analyze? One hour ago? Yesterday? Last month? Last quarter?
  

It’s important for executives to know how long a proposed IT effort will take and what it will cost, but the ROI figure is nearly worthless. I’ve seen many business cases prepared to justify IT investments. Virtually all of them predicted increased revenues, higher profits, and lower costs. And all of them ascribed the benefits entirely to the technology, making it sound like a can’t-lose proposition. In reality, IT is never a sure bet because of the complex interplay between technologies, capabilities, and complements. Smart companies spend little time predicting the financial benefits that will accrue from IT efforts. They keep track of spending and milestones and constantly check to see if they are on track to gain the IT-based capabilities they desire.

Following on from my post on viral video, I recently came across a great post by David Armano (Creative Director, Digitas) who created a wonderful visual (get PDF here) for considering “consumer values” when marketing with emerging technologies.

The next time you work on a major marketing or interactive initiative—ask yourself this question: “is what I’m doing hitting at least some of the consumer values on this list”? The 12 Consumer Values to Drive Technology-related Product and Service Innovations was created by the Washington, DC-based research and consulting firm Social Technologies. My rationale for putting this into wall-friendly visual is simple: I think agencies run the risk of infatuation with YouTube and the temptation to put all their eggs in one viral video basket. And we have to be careful about not neglecting other areas of marketing innovation.

David then went on to say…

My point here is that the gi-normous success of YouTube may tempt the Ad industry to hyper-focus on viral videos as an inexpensive way to generate buzz (and ROI). Nothing wrong with this at all—but we cannot forget that at the end of the day, a video is a passive experience. It can make us laugh, cry and want to share it with others—we just can’t interact with or actively engage with a video. In contrast, you CAN interact with YouTube itself. Imagine if an agency had come up with that idea?

So, as we all continue to remain entranced by the GooTube craze and ponder on the wise words of Tim Street (while watching some FrenchMaidTV, of course), I completely agree that we should step back and carefully consider these values which “…represent the characteristics that consumers will look for in products, services, and technologies over the next 10 to 15 years.”

Social Technologies claim that this list of twelve “…draws on more than six years of company research into emerging technologies and changes in global consumer lifestyles” (see press release here). And according to Tom Conger (Founder, Social Technologies), “…In crafting this research we didn’t want to simply look at what was possible based on a technology point of view or what was happening in the research lab. Instead, we wanted to examine what people actually need and want from future technology-related products and services based on today’s trends and change drivers. We also wanted to look at which emerging technologies were going to help fulfill these needs and desires in the future.”

I’ve listed the 12 Consumer Values to Drive Technology-related Product and Service Innovations in more detail below. As you’re going through them, take note of how many of these values are already fulfilled by many of the Web 2.0 / Social Media applications—such as YouTube—and perhaps we can begin to understand why they’ve done so well…

User creativity
Consumers increasingly want to create, augment, or influence design and content, and share these creations with their peers. Supporting user creativity will be increasingly important to consumer technology, and will become more mainstream in coming decades.

Personalization
Consumers will increasingly look for products and services that align with their specific personal needs and preferences—whether in the aesthetics of a product or in its functional design. More goods will be created to match individuals’ unique specifications.

Simplicity
Simplicity will have growing value for consumers confronted with information overload, time stress, and technological complexity. Simplicity’s influence is already evident in new, stripped-down devices that offer just a few functions, as well as in minimalist interfaces that conceal breathtaking complexity. The common denominator of all these efforts is that they are human-centered—and thus easy to learn and integrate into busy lives.

Assistance
As consumers are bombarded with more tasks, choices, and information, and as demographic changes such as aging reshape consumer markets, they are looking to assistive technologies for help. Consumers will seek to bolster and extend their natural abilities—with technologies ranging from pharmaceuticals that enhance mental performance to robot aides for the elderly.

Appropriateness
Products and services will need to embrace the principle of appropriateness to ensure that they are suitably designed for users with varying physical needs, resources, cultural characteristics, literacy levels, etc. Appropriateness will aid in the spread of technology products and services to new markets and to diverse user segments.

Convenience
Already well-established in mature markets, demand for convenience will rise as a technology value for consumers all over the world. Consumers will look for technological products and services that give them what they want and need on demand and that reduce effort and relieve time pressure.

Connectedness
Connectedness gives consumers what they want, when they want it, and will grow exponentially with the expanding global information infrastructure. Consumers will look for products and services that seamlessly integrate with this global network.

Efficiency
Efficiency is the ratio of output to input—or, put simply, the ability to do more with less. It will become more important to technology as consumers search for products and services that let them manage emerging resource uncertainties, rising costs, and other pressures.

Intelligence
Intelligence will be enabled by innovations that increasingly shift information and decision-making burdens from the user to the device or service. The demand for greater intelligence will come in response to factors including complexity, aging, and the desire for personalized experiences.

Protection
Protection will be sought by consumers in a world that feels increasingly insecure. Consumers will look for technology-enabled products and services that strengthen their sense of personal security and protect their families, homes, wealth, and privacy.

Health
Consumers will look to technological products and services to maintain and, increasingly, improve their health and wellness. The search for health-enabling solutions will extend beyond traditional health and medical products and services to include more of the things consumers use in their everyday lives, whether at home, work, or play.

Sustainability
Consumers will increasingly look for products and services that embrace sustainability—reducing the “human footprint” on the environment while maintaining quality of life. A variety of technologies offer ways to minimize resource use, waste, and pollution while improving human welfare.

HOLY COW!!! I didn’t see this one coming…You can read about the announcement on the Google blog (“Spot On”), JotSpot blog (“We’re
Googlers now”), and read additional commentary on TechCrunch.

As excited as I am about this, I can't help but think that the contraction of the two company names may bring about an unfortunate new
name (G-SP*T, anyone?).

Anyway, getting my mind out of the gutter, I think it all started a few months back
(in May 2006), when rumors were going around that
Yahoo was going to acquire JotSpot. At the time, I was working with some of the
JotSpot guys and got inside info that it was not the case.

Today however, I got an email from someone close to
the JotSpot group, that simply read: “Check out www.JotSpot.com”.
I was wondering if they had re-designed their website, launched Jot 3.0, or what
!?! But lo and behold, this is what greeted me…

 
I’m
sure I’ll have more to report soon…so watch this space!!!

Hellooo…I’m finally back from all my biz trips and,
though I still have out-of-town visitors around, it’s good to be back blogging
again (finally).

I can’t believe it’s the end of OCT already and over
a month since Podcast Academy 4 and the 2006 Podcast Expo. I’ve been
meaning to comment on both events for a while now, but since I’ve been so busy
lately, here are a few links to several write-ups by some other folks who
attended the events as well…

- The Otter
Group blog has three short posts on the Expo (see 1, 2, 3)
- The
Trend Junkie—by my pal Greg Cangialosi—also has a recap of both PA4 and PME
- For a comprehensive review, check out Phil Windley's Technometria blog.
- And of course, there’s always more stuff over at Technorati.

Anyway, as promised a few posts back, here are some
take-away points from the Podcast Academy 4 talk by Tim Street (Executive Producer,
FrenchMaidTV.com) on “Viral Video—The Secret To Spreading Your Content”, which I’ve also decided to make
this weeks QOTW. You can also listen to a VERY raw recording of Tim’s directly
below (or here), which I recorded live at the event.

NOTE: As you can imagine from the title/speaker, there were
plenty of videos that were played during the talk. Tim announces most of the
titles before/after the video, so you can probably search for them on YouTube
(or similar), if you’re interested in watching them.

So, here is Tim’s answer to
the question of…”What makes a video
viral?”

- It’s
easy to share—it’s OK to share and it’s not too explicit.
- It takes
a risk and is willing to bad-mouth or embarrass the subject of the video.
- It has a
natural problem involved that the audience can solve.
- Most of
all, it’s emotionally engaging.

Make your
video emotionally engaging and you will make your video viral…

People do
want to be engaged—they want to have some fun while they’re surfing the net.
And what it boils down to is making things emotional.

Tim then went on to expound on the various emotions
(also see the bottom table here) which you
can use to engage your audience. I’ve highlighted the primary emotions in CAPS,
the secondary emotions in Title Caps, and the suggested focus in red and bold.

1. LOVE: Affection, Lust, Longing

2. JOY: Cheerfulness,
Zest, Contentment, Pride, Optimism, Enthrallment, Relief

3. SURPRISE

4. ANGER: Irritation,
Exasperation, Rage, Disgust, Envy, Torment

5. SADNESS*:
Suffering, Sadness, Disappointment, Shame, Neglect, Sympathy
(NOTE:
Sadness is a place where you can really play, but you
have to be careful, because you can offend a lot of people)

6. FEAR: Horror, Nervousness

And so for this week’s QOTW, here’s what Tim
Street had to say about “What does it mean to really engage your audience?”

If you can
create a piece of video that [evokes] one emotion, you’re doing a good job.
If you can
create two, you’re doing and awesome job.
And if you
can move three emotions in a piece of video, you’re a friggin’ genius!

Use your
emotions to engage…Empower and unite your viewers by building a bond with your
brand, host, characters, storylines, products, services, and causes that they
admire. Find out what people care about.

And IMHO folks, that’s what really makes video viral.

Anyway, while I was listening to this talk, I was
reminded of Kathy Sierra’s post entitled “Make it Memorable” (which
is definitely worth reading!), which I think captures the essence of what Tim
is trying to say. In fact, her whole site—Creating Passionate Users—is all about
how to engage the audience, so I thought it would be a great way to end this post
off with Kathy’s graph for audience engagement…